Litigation cost management system

ABSTRACT

The litigation cost management system (FIG.  1 ) provides modules for outlining the process of litigation ( 12 ), establishing pricing variables to each step of the litigation ( 14 ), all at the outset of the case. A case budget ( 16 ) is then generated and the case is managed by outside counsel based upon the agreed upon budget and process. When exceptions occur during the course of litigation, outside counsel electronically submits requests for new work to corporate counsel, which in turn can be approved or denied. Point and click billing allows immediate simplistic invoicing which requires no review by corporate counsel as the work performed has already been approved. Statistical reporting provides corporate counsel with real time analysis of all the cases that are in the system.

This application is based on and claims priority in U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application 60/387,666 filed Jun. 11, 2002.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to a litigation process costcontrol management system for use by corporate counsel that managessubstantial case loads, more specifically, an interactive real timesystem to be used between corporate counsel and with law firms wherethere is a need to add efficiencies and to standardize, streamline,facilitate, and control the cost of the litigation process.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Traditionally litigation management involves the client, corporatecounsel, calling the outside counsel or law firm and informing them theyhave a problem that needs to be resolved. If the problem is a suit thathas been filed against the company, then a firm is retained and thedefense begins. Often large corporations will have massive litigationbudgets established in order to defend the company in the 100's of casesthat are pending at any one given time. In massive tort litigation, acompany could have 100's of cases pending in different states, countiesand jurisdictions. This requires multiple firms and lawyers to beretained in order to handle the cases. As a result, corporate counsel issubjected to the different management styles, the jurisdictionalnuances, and the different billing and invoicing practices for each lawfirm.

The invoicing and billing systems for each of the law firms thatcorporate counsel retains may vary which results in inefficiencies forboth corporate counsel and for law firms. Typically, a lawsuit beginswith commencement of an action by filing a complaint, then settlementnegotiations may occur, and if they are not successful, then the caseproceeds. The next step involves the parties commencing discovery on oneanother and on non-parties. Motion practice can begin before or afterdiscovery depending upon posturing of the parties. After motion practiceis completed, the case either settles or goes to trial.

The management of this process varies from law firm to law firm, oftendepending on the type of suit and the skill and experience of theattorneys working on the case. The cost of the suit accordingly variesbecause different attorneys have different management styles. Someattorneys may prefer to use experts, some may not, some may preferextensive motion practice, some may not, some may rely heavily ondepositions, and some firms may not take any depositions at all. Thesevarying practices lead to inconsistencies of how corporate counsel dealswith the various law firms it may retain. For example, if a corporationis defending itself against mass tort litigation cases that are pendingin various states around the country, then law firms in each of thosestates would be retained. The attorneys in each of those firms will havedifferent hourly rates, will have different experience levels, and willvary on how long they take to draft motions, prepare for hearings anddepositions, etc. This causes unpredictability for budgeting purposes,something corporations would like to overcome.

Traditionally, the invoicing and billing for litigation is done eitheron a fixed fee arrangement, a contingency fee arrangement, or on a payas you go, or hourly, arrangement where invoices are generated eachmonth, and, hopefully paid. Each of these fee arrangements has drawbacksthat could affect the relationship with counsel and the quality of therepresentation and the cost of the litigation.

Fixed fee arrangement requires the parties to establish a fixed feeamount at the outset of the case. With this type of arrangement, thework that is performed and the hours that are billed are recorded andtracked during litigation. Often, workload is adjusted based upon costaveraging. This type of fee arrangement runs the risk of being resultoriented as the firm may be less inclined to be as effective if it seesthe work is exceeding the time allotted in the fixed fee arrangement.Fixed fee arrangements can also result in other inefficiencies whichaffect the quality of the work and negatively affect the outcome of thecase.

Contingency fee arrangements likewise have certain inefficiencies whichmay negatively affect the outcome of the case. For example, if the casecontinues and it is later realized that the outcome is going to bringlittle value, the quality of services rendered could decrease or ceaseall together. Other inefficiencies may occur with this arrangementresulting in a less than desirable outcome. On the other hand, if it isrealized that the outcome of the case will yield abnormally highresults, then the firm may realize an unfair return on their efforts tothe client's dismay.

The standard pay as you go fee arrangement involves performing the workon a monthly basis and invoicing same shortly thereafter. In thetraditional litigation invoicing and billing arrangement, a client wouldbe advised as to the litigation process and, after the appropriateinvestigation, the case would begin. As the work is done, the time andcost are logged in on a daily basis. At the end of each month an invoiceis created which summarizes the time and costs along with a descriptionof services that were rendered. The invoice is then reviewed by thepartner, corrected where necessary which requires steps back and forthwith the typist, to where it is then finalized. Once finalized, theinvoice generally goes through an auditing process in an accountingdepartment of the law firm for verification with the firm's billingsystem.

If a firm's accounting department finds a problem, the invoice goes backto the billing attorney for correction and then goes through the systemone more time. However, if the invoice passes scrutiny the first time,and is electronically sent, or is placed in an envelope, postage isapplied to the envelope, and it is sealed and then forwarded tocorporate counsel whose company receives it in a few days. Once thecompany receives the invoice, it goes to their accounting department tobe logged in to the system. Thereafter, the invoice is forwarded to thecorporate attorney that is in charge of that particular case, forreview, critique, approval or disapproval. This requires corporatecounsel to set aside the time for this step, which slows down thecollection process. If the invoice does not comply with corporatecounsel's billing standards, or otherwise is not acceptable, then theinvoice could be rejected and possibly returned to the billing attorneyfor correction. Worse yet, the invoice could be put in the ‘to deal withlater’ pile and it may sit for a lengthy period before being resolved.For the firm, this delay reduces cash flow, minimizes realization on theaccount and the entire process increases the cost of doing business forboth in-house counsel and outside counsel.

However, once the invoice passes corporate counsel's review, the invoiceis sent to the company's billing department for payment. In manyinstances payment is not even scheduled until thirty (30) days after theaforementioned process has been completed. Once the draft for paying theinvoice has been cut, it too may set and then be put into an envelope,sealed, postage applied thereto, and sent off to the law firm. Thisrequires yet additional steps by the law firm because it now has toreconcile the check with its own internal accounting system and thenhave the check deposited with the bank.

The aforementioned process can further be delayed if the charges billedon the invoice were not approved by corporate counsel. Worse yet, iswhen the work has been previously approved by corporate counsel, but thecompany now refuses to pay for the work after it has been completed.Thus, in the traditional litigation arrangement where the client pays asthe work is done, significant steps are involved which can lead toinefficiencies, re-work disputes over billing, wasted time in thebilling and invoicing process, loss of realization of time and money,and long periods before payment is ever made or received.

There are other problems with the traditional style of billing theclient after the work has been. For example, controlling costs oflitigation after the work has been performed, is inherently problematic.For law firms working on an hourly rate, there is little incentive inthe system to be efficient. The result is that a firm may invoice fortheir inefficiencies and non-value added steps, which the client may notbecome aware of until after the work is completed and the invoice hasalready been sent to the client. It would be preferred to provide alitigation cost control management system that allows corporate counselto control fees at their point of origin, that is, when the work isbeing performed. It would also be preferred to provide a methodology ofmanaging the cost of litigation that controls the unit of time and thevalue of the activity, which would allow for automatic enforcement andcompliance with the companies litigation guidelines, with little or noassociated monitoring costs.

It would also be desirable to provide a litigation cost controlmanagement system that is much more than just a billing system, butinstead an efficient cost control device that removes waste in thelitigation process, surprises to the client, yet yields high qualitylegal services at predictable costs. The system allows the client tohave complete control over the litigation process. The present inventionaccomplishes this objective through implementing cost containment andcontrol, by accurately and continuously updating the case activity andthe litigation budget through real time communications between insidecounsel and outside counsel.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a cost managementsystem that allows for exceptions to be made during the case that can beimmediately approved and added to the billing system with ease. Costbased decision making allows for continuous updates and allows corporatecounsel to know at any given time, the cost, and status of thelitigation without ever needing to pick up the phone and contact outsidecounsel. One aspect of the invention allows costs to be captured whenthe work is done, thus allowing the billing partner or other appropriatefirm personnel to point and click in order to electronically invoice theclient at any time. Thus, there is no need for the law firm or corporatecounsel to review the invoice because the work has been previouslyapproved.

Another embodiment of the present invention eliminates the need forcorporate counsel to approve items on invoices, eliminates any up-timecharges, eliminates any re-work, eliminates over billing and paymentsfor any of the inefficiencies as a result of the firm. This isaccomplished by utilizing litigation process maps that allow for taskvalue pricing at the outset of the case in order to establish a budget.

One of the embodiments of the present invention provides a point andclick invoicing system that automatically sends a current invoice togeneral counsel's accounting department. It would be desirable toimmediately transfer the required funds from the corporation to thefirm's bank account, thus eliminating several days of delays and effort.The present invention accomplishes this task because the work performedhas been previously approved at the amount agreed upon, and thus, thestandard inefficiencies in the system are removed.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a cost baseddecision making litigation process management system that allows forcapturing immediate application of the best practices of all law firmsthat are within the system. Yet another embodiment of the presentinvention allows inside counsel to be able to award bonuses to a firmthat does exceptional work by allowing corporate counsel to add avariance to the predetermined budget.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides a system withchangeable variances, for each task performed by the firm in order toassist in budgeting at the outset of the case. The system alsoaccommodates projected expenses, and allows corporate counsel to approvea budget, or reject it with alternatives, and then to have the outsidelaw firm approve the budget. One aspect of the present invention wouldprovide for exceptions to the budget, with prior approval and wouldautomatically update the system so that real-time data can be obtainedas to the current costs of each case.

Another embodiment of the present invention provides statisticalanalysis of the performance of each law firm that is in the company'sdatabase.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 is a flow chart illustrating the eight basic areas or modules ofthe litigation cost management system;

FIG. 2 illustrates a process map for the steps involved in responding toa complaint;

FIG. 3 illustrates the second part of the process map for responding toa complaint;

FIG. 4 illustrates a process map for preparing and filing a crosscomplaint;

FIG. 5 is the second part of the process map for filing a crosscomplaint;

FIG. 6 is a process map for preparing an affidavit;

FIG. 7 is the second part of the process map for preparing an affidavit;

FIG. 8 illustrates an output from the computer screen illustrating thedefault values tab selected;

FIG. 9 illustrates a screen output from the litigation cost managementsystem, illustrating the pricing control chart ranges;

FIG. 10 illustrates a flow chart that shows the steps in-house counselgoes through when generating a new case budget;

FIG. 11 is a continuation of the steps in-house counsel goes throughwhen developing a new case budget;

FIG. 12 is a screen printout from the litigation cost management systemillustrating a budget and litigation worksheet prepared for submissionto outside counsel;

FIG. 13 illustrates a screen output for outside counsel to review thebudget;

FIG. 14 illustrates a screen output from the litigation cost managementsystem from the outside counsel's viewpoint, showing changes that havebeen made to the budget using this screen;

FIG. 15 illustrates a screen printout from the litigation costmanagement system from inside counsel's perspective, showing the changerequest from outside counsel, prior to the budget being accepted;

FIG. 16 illustrates a screen output from the litigation cost managementsystem from corporate counsel's perspective, illustrating some of thecases in the system;

FIG. 17 illustrates a screen output for the present invention fromoutside counsel's perspective, and depicting a current case budgetstatus;

FIG. 18 illustrates a work flow diagram of the invoicing/billing systemof the present invention;

FIG. 19 illustrates a work flow diagram from the outside counsel'sperspective of the billing/invoicing process;

FIG. 20 is a screen outside counsel sees when beginning the point andclick billing process;

FIG. 21 is another screen outside counsel sees when billing a particulartask;

FIG. 22 is the screen outside counsel sees in order to submit an invoiceto corporate counsel;

FIG. 23 is a work flow diagram from the outside counsel's perspective,of the expense invoicing process;

FIG. 24 illustrates a work flow diagram of the exception request processfrom the perspective of outside counsel;

FIG. 25 illustrates the exception request process from the perspectiveof corporate counsel;

FIG. 26 is a screen output of the litigation cost management system fromoutside counsel's perspective, showing the exception that has beenrequested;

FIG. 27 illustrates a screen output from the litigation cost managementsystem from inside counsel's perspective, showing the exceptionrequested; and

FIG. 28 illustrates one type of statistical report that the present costmanagement system can generate.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The Litigation Cost Management System 10 is PC based and allowscorporate counsel to communicate through the internet with outsidecounsel. The Management System 10 operates using preferably eightdifferent modules that are interconnected for processing various aspectsof the system. The System 10 includes a creating process maps module 12,setting pricing variables and defaults module 14, a case budget module16, a case status module 18, automated billing system module 20, anexceptions module 22, a statistical reporting module 24, and anincentives module 26. These modules collectively define the LitigationCost Management System which allows corporate counsel to effectivelymanage litigation and its associated costs, when the work is being done.It will be appreciated that the number of modules can vary, withoutdeparting from the present invention.

The process maps module 12 includes over 30 different maps of thelitigation process. A few of these process maps are shown in FIGS. 2-7.The process maps represent the steps involved in a particular task, forexample responding to a complaint as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, orpreparing a cross-complaint as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 or the steps forpreparing an affidavit as shown in FIGS. 6 and 7. The present system 10has in it a map of every task of the litigation process and they areplaced in a database where they can be called upon at the outset of thecase by corporate counsel. Each task has a value assigned to it so thata budget can be created. The present invention includes the followingprocess maps that are available to corporate counsel which are utilizedfor budgeting and cost management purposes.

(Commencement of Actions/Pleadings)

-   -   1. Responsive Pleadings and Third Party Practice.    -   2. Federal Court Removal Process.    -   3. Cross, Counter and/or Third Party Complaint.

(Motion Practice)

-   -   4. Motion Practice (Affirmative).    -   5. Motion Practice (Defensive).

(Discovery Directed to Other Parties)

-   -   6. Interrogatories (Affirmative).    -   7. Depositions By Oral Testimony.    -   8. Depositions On Written Questions.    -   9. Requests For Production.    -   10. Requests To Admit.    -   11. Requests For Examination Of Third Party Or Premises.    -   12. Compelling Production Of Documents And Things From        Non-Parties.    -   13. Meeting With Witness Who Is Not An Expert Or The Client.

(Discovery Directed to Client)

-   -   14. Interrogatories.    -   15. Depositions By Old Testimony.    -   16. Depositions On Written Questions.    -   17. Request For Production Of Documents And Things.    -   18. Requests To Admit.

(Investigation)

-   -   19. Research Technical And Background Information    -   20. Meeting With Client And Prospective Witnesses.    -   21. On-Site Inspection Off Premises.

(Other Activities)

-   -   22. Offer Of Judgment (Affirmative)    -   23. Offer Of Judgment (Defensive)    -   24. Drafting Affidavit.    -   25. Evidentiary Hearing.    -   26. Pretrial And Settlement Conferences.    -   27. Expert Witnesses.    -   28. Witness Preparation.

(Resolution Efforts)

-   -   29. Mediation/Facilitation Efforts.

The Cost Management System 10 is capable of utilizing yet other processmaps that could be added to the System. These process maps are in thesystem 10 but can be modified by corporate counsel in order to tailorfit the expected process for a particular piece of litigation. Thus, theSystem is flexible in that it can be modified in order to manage cost ofany type of litigation.

FIG. 2 depicts a process map 12 for the steps involved with, outsidecounsel responding to a Complaint 28. The first step is to receive andreview 30 the complaint and ascertain whether pre-answer actions 32 areappropriate. If action is necessary, then actions such as removal toFederal Court 34, filing a motion to dismiss 36, can take place. Counselcan also file an appearance 38, or, if insurance or a third party may beresponsible, the defendant could tender a defense 40 at which timefuture work would stop 42 if the defense is accepted. A party may alsoobtain an extension of time 44 in order to proceed onward with the case.

FIG. 3 illustrates yet additional steps for responding to the complaintwhich includes transmitting 52 the responsive pleading to the court.Once that is done, a determination 54 must be made as to whether a replyto the pleading is required, and, if so, a decision 56 is made as towhether a response is timely received. If it has been timely received,then it is reviewed 58 and a determination 60 is made as to whether thereply is adequate. If it is adequate, then it is communicated 62 to theclient. Thereafter, the process for responding to the complaint isstopped 64. No further action is taken on this process map. Thereafter,the billing attorney in charge of this customer can go to the billingmodule 20 and click send the invoice which will automatically invoicecorporate counsel for this work that has been completed. It will beappreciated that the point and click process can be done at anypre-described task segment within each given process.

FIGS. 4 and 5 illustrate a process map 66 for preparing a cross-complaint, counter-complaint or third-party complaint 68. First adecision 70 is made as to whether client input is necessary and if so,the client is informed 72. If client input is not required, then it isnecessary to locate and identify the proper party 74, draft theappropriate complaint 76 and then a decision 78 must be made as towhether the proposed defendant is an original party. If not, then asummons 80 must be made and served 82. If the proposed defendant is anoriginal party, then a decision 84 as to whether leave of court is made,and, if so, then the motion practice module 86 is selected. If leave ofcourt is not required, then the complaint is served 88 and the partieswait to determine whether defendant files a timely response 90. If thedefendant does not file a timely response, then a default is filed 92 orcommunication 94 is made with the opponent. However, if the answer isreceived 96, then a decision 98 is made as to whether any responsivepleadings must be drafted 100 and served 102 on the defendant or theother parties. However, if no responsive pleading is required, then thestatus is reported 104 to the client where this process is thencompleted and stopped 106. This summarizes the individual tasks that areencountered when preparing, filing and processing a cross-complaint.Once this work is done, the billing system module 20 can be accessed bythe billing attorney, and an invoice can automatically be generated andsent electronically to corporate counsel, to his accounting department,through the internet or some other electronic means. The appropriatepersonnel can bill completed segments as the work is finished withoutwaiting for the entire responsive pleading practice being completed.

FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate the process map 108 for creating an affidavit110. The individual tasks are set out in the flow charts depicted inFIGS. 6 and 7. Each individual action task has a pricing value with arange associated with it. During the budgeting process, these values areinput or activated by corporate counsel in order to generate a proposedbudget. It will be appreciated that similar types of process maps arecreated for each of the other above-mentioned litigation processes. Theprocess maps illustrated in FIGS. 2-7 are merely representative of theprocess maps utilized by the system 10 which would be of similar logicas the one disclosed herein, but specifically tailored for theirparticular litigation process.

FIGS. 8 and 9 depict screens from the setting pricing variables anddefaults module 14 of the cost management system 10. FIG. 9 shows thebaseline of the values in the system 10. The formula used to establishthe baseline values could consider factors such as task description,level of expertise, normal hourly rates, time required to complete acertain task and the value of the task. These baseline values can bechanged by adjusting the default values, which is done by going toscreen 112 of FIG. 8. The default values shown in FIG. 8 can be presetfor a particular law firm once it is in the system. A formula can beused to compute the default values once a certain firm and type of caseis selected. These factors allow for adjustment of the base line numbersin order to generate an accurate budget. Alternatively, individual taskscan be given a set price and they are placed into task value segmentswhich allow for discrete billing. The defaulting values that appear oncea firm is selected can be modified by corporate counsel, which addsflexibility to the system.

From the user's perspective, the management system 10 has windows thatonly corporate counsel can see and windows that outside counsel can see.FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate screen outputs from the pricingvariable/defaults module 14 that corporate counsel will see when itenters the case information into the system. With respect to FIG. 8, theinside counsel will see a screen 112 with a general tab, a defaultvalues tab and a history tab. When the default value tab 114 isselected, values 116 are already preset in the firm location, type ofcase, lawyer category, firm tier level and other categories 118. Thesevalues can be changed by corporate counsel if the defaults are notacceptable. These values are based upon inside counsel selecting aparticular firm 120 in the pull down menu on the left hand side of thescreen. As law firms are added to the system 10, the database willinclude the information necessary to complete the categories 118. Thepurpose of the categories 118 is to take into consideration standardfeatures that are inherent with the type of case 122 and venue. Thedefault values are factored in when creating the case budget. Thesedefault values 114 can be modified by corporate counsel. These types ofparameters assist corporate counsel in standardizing the system 10 andto maintain continuity in the budgeting process.

The firm location category takes into consideration whether the case ispending in New York, Omaha, or some other city. The higher the value,the more likely it is pending in a big city such as New York. The typeof case category 122 places a higher value on intellectual propertycases and a lower value on cases such as workers' compensation. Theother categories, such as lawyer category, firm tier and other, provideadditional factors for corporate counsel to take into consideration whencreating a budget.

FIG. 9 illustrates a screen shot 124 of the process map for filing amotion with the value pricing baseline data 126 illustrated for eachtask to be completed in that process. This is one of the aspects of thepresent invention as it allows corporate counsel to specifically priceeach particular task 128 in the process map. Here, ten minutes isallotted for the task communicating proposed motion with client 128 anda specified attorney is designated for this task. The default values 114are already preset, and a $53 amount 130 appears on screen 124 so thatcorporate counsel can see the actual targeted cost of that particulartask. In this instance, there is no variance as $53 is the set amount.Alternatively, a variance 131 can be provided by corporate counsel.Thus, the system 10 is flexible in its pricing structure. Pricingbaseline data 126 is provided for each action step that is set out inthe process map and collectively are accumulated with all other mapswithin the system 10 in order to generate a proposed budget. Corporatecounsel may go to the screen, change the values that are in the pricingbaseline data 126 so as to adjust the value for a given task 128.Corporate counsel sets these formulas or variables for each of theprocess maps prior to the case budget being submitted to outsidecounsel. Modifying variables allows the client the flexibility to giveranges to each task. It will be appreciated that at the discretion ofinside counsel, no range can be assigned, but instead, a fixed value foreach task can be input.

Each task can have a dollar range 130 associated with it to provideupper and lower control limits for a particular event. As long asoutside counsel stays within these control limits, the system 10 canautomatically approve any invoice regarding performance of such task.Alternatively, corporate counsel could require everything to beapproved. Also, corporate counsel can track where outside counselperforms within this range, so as to compare a particular law firm toother firms. This type of data is generated by the statistical reportsmodule 24.

FIGS. 10 and 11 illustrate the steps corporate counsel goes through inorder to establish a case budget 16. FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate a budgetlitigation worksheet screen that inside and outside counsel use whencreating a new case budget. It will be appreciated that this is merelyrepresentative of the various screens that either counsel may see.

FIG. 10 illustrates the steps that corporate counsel goes through inorder to set up a new case budget. First, in-house counsel ascertainswhether the matter is to be sent to outside counsel 150. A decision 152is made as to whether outside counsel is currently in the system and, ifnot, it must be placed into the system 154. If they are in the system,then it must be determined 156 which outside counsel to refer the matterto. Once that is done, outside counsel begins the process by startingthe cost management software and then clicking on the action items 158toolbar and selecting a new case budget window 160. Once the window isopen, corporate counsel enters pertinent data into the system and thenhits the enter budget button 162.

Next, corporate counsel reviews the budget details that are created bythe defaults 164 and makes a decision 166 as to whether the budget isappropriate and if it is not, then the budget is changed 168. However,if the default budget is appropriate, then the budget is submitted 170to outside counsel.

FIG. 11, illustrates the steps associated with outside counsel reviewingthe proposed budget. This is accomplished with outside counsel loggingon 172 to the system and selecting the new matter button. Outsidecounsel now reviews 174 the case budget information and ascertains 176whether it is acceptable. If it is not acceptable, then modifications178 can occur or the matter can be declined 180 by outside counsel.However, if the case is accepted, then the budget is submitted back tocorporate counsel 182.

Inside counsel now goes to the action items tab and clicks on new casebudget responses 184. A decision 186 is then made as to whether outsidecounsel accepts the original budget, and if not, outside counsel mayconsider alternative actions such as accepting the modified budget 188,or rejecting the budget modifications 190, or modify the request forbudget change 192 or to change outside counsel 194. Alternatively, ifthe original budget is accepted, then the case is assigned 196 and abudget is established.

The above steps set forth in FIGS. 10 and 11 show the entire process ofestablishing a new case budget. This becomes the roadmap for all futurework that is done on this particular case. Exceptions, of course, can beprovided and are discussed in the Exceptions module 12.

FIG. 12 illustrates the screen 198 the in-house counsel sees at the stepof submitting the budget 170. The budget worksheet identifies in fieldsthe particular name of the plaintiff 200, the date of the purportedinjury 202, the location of the lawsuit 204, the name of the outsidecounsel 206 that has been identified in step 156 as the proposedcounsel, the date the complaint was filed 208 and the type of case thatis at issue 210. It will be appreciated that this screen can have othercategories other than those set forth herein. If the type of case hasbeen done before, and the pricing is in the system 10, then the counselhits the enter budget button 211 and all of the defaults that are storedin the system are used to generate a budget. After it is generated,corporate counsel then may tailor fit the default budget for aparticular type of case. To modify the default budget, corporatecounsel, for example, may hit an ABA task 212 that she wants to modifyand a screen pops up. The screen, for example, allows for additionaltasks to be added which in turn allows the default budget to generate anew budget specifically designed for a particular case.

Columns are provided that describe the task description utilizing theABA codes 212 which provide default descriptions of the work to beselected by outside counsel. Fees and expenses are added to create theproposed budget 218 by in-house counsel. The budget is transmitted tooutside counsel by pressing the submit button 170.

FIG. 13 illustrates the screen 220 seen by outside counsel once thebudget has been submitted to him. Outside counsel can accept or rejector revise the budget. If they wish to revise the budget, they go toscreen 222 (FIG. 14) and click on the proper ABA code, adjust thequantity of the process to be performed and the system 10 changes thepricing once the screen 222 is closed. Next the new budget numbers arereflected on the bottom of the screen 220 of FIG. 13. The submit buttonis then pressed and inside counsel sees screen 226 of FIG. 15 whichshows the changes that were made to the original budget. When thisprocess is completed, corporate counsel closes screen 226, which causesthe budget to be finalized.

FIG. 15 illustrates a screen 226 that inside counsel sees once the newproposed budget is sent from outside counsel. The original budget 228 isillustrated next to the new budget 230. Inside counsel can accept 232,modify 234 or reject 236 the budget and resend it to outside counsel.The budget can be adjusted by going back into a screen similar to thatshown in FIG. 14. After the adjustments are made, the revised budget canbe resent to outside counsel.

The case status module 18 of the system 10 provides various screens 238for providing information to corporate counsel. FIG. 16 illustrates ascreen 238 that corporate counsel reviews in order to check the statusof an existing case within the system 10. From the screen 238, counselcan select specific cases in order to obtain real time information onany particular case the company is monitoring, as long as the data forthat case has been put into the system 10. The cases illustrated in FIG.16 are merely exemplary.

FIG. 17 illustrates a screen output 240 that outside counsel sees whichshows the current status of a particular case. From the screen 240,outside counsel can ascertain the amount remaining in the budget 242 andcompare that to the original budget. This is presented in a form of abudget and litigation worksheet 244 which summarizes all expenses andfees to date for that particular case.

FIG. 18 represents the billing system module 20 which is an automatedprocess that minimizes steps outside counsel must take in order to getpaid. The billing system module 20 includes a work performed segment 250and a web based segment 252, a data center 254, and an accounts payablesegment 256. The segments are connected and allow the free transfer ofinformation, such as billing data 258, submission of invoices 260 andpayment information 262.

FIG. 19 is a flow diagram showing the steps outside counsel goes throughin order to submit invoices to corporate counsel. To start the billingthe work performed segment 250, first, the attorney logs into the systemand opens the home page 264. Once opened, the attorney selects thematter 266 on which work has been performed, reviews the screen andselects the ABA code 268 for the work that has been completed. Theappropriate task segment, or segments, is then selected.270, within aparticular ABA code and that represents work that was done on aparticular process such as a motion, deposition, etc. Next, the attorneymust ascertain whether an additional description 272 is required and ifso, an additional description is provided 274. If no additionaldescription is required, then the attorney hits the submit invoice tab276 and the invoice is then submitted to the client 260. The invoicethen goes to the corporation's general accounting system 276 wherepayment is generated 278 by either direct deposit, or by check.Information regarding the payment 262 is transmitted back through thedata center 254 where it is processed and historical payment information280 is generated. That payment information 266 is then sent back to theweb segment 252 for distribution to the in-house counsel's automatedaccounting system 282 or a manual accounting system 284. Thus, outsidecounsel's accounting system 282 is capable of communicating via internetor some other electronic transfer means, for example satellite, to thecompany's accounting system 276. Thus, real time payment information 262flows between the company and outside counsel, allowing either to haveaccurate information on payment status.

The data center 254 is operable to house all of the data for aparticular client/company and acts as the hub for every law firm in thesystem 10 to funnel its billing and payment information therethrough.The data center 254 is operable to sort and generate the statisticalreports for reporting module 24 and becomes a tool for corporate counselto monitor all costs running through the system 10.

The web segment 252 is the porthole through which a particular law firmtransmits its billing data to the company's data center 254, and itreceives payment information 262 back from the data center 254. Thepoint and click billing system 286 standardizes the inputting of thework that has been performed by simply clicking on the ABA code asdiscussed in FIG. 19 and then drilling down to the particular task thathas been completed.

FIG. 20 illustrates a screen 500 that the billing attorney will see whena process has been completed and the task is ready to be billed. Here,arrow 502 is hit which takes counsel to screen 506 of FIG. 21. Then, aspecific task 508 that has been completed can be selected and billed byhitting arrow 510 causing screen 512 to appear (FIG. 22). An additionaldescription 514 can be added if desired. Otherwise, submit invoicebutton 516 is hit causing an invoice to be electronically transmitted asdepicted in the FIG. 18 diagram.

FIG. 23 illustrates a workflow diagram for outside counsel to enter intothe system 10,the expenses 290 that have been incurred. First, outsidecounsel logs onto the system home page 292 and selects the matter thatthe expense occurred in 294. Next counsel selects the expense screen 296from the tool bar or from a pull-down menu and selects the expense item298 and enters the amount of the expense. The submit invoice button 300is clicked on and then the attorney must make the decision as to whetherthe litigation guidelines require a receipt 302, and if so, then it willbe submitted 304 to counsel or retained 306, depending on thecircumstances. If there is no retention policy on receipts then theexpense invoice is submitted to the client 308. The expense invoice isprocessed through the billing system module 20 as set forth in FIG. 18and the payment is generated 278 as discussed above. The expenseinformation is stored in the data center 254 for later statisticalanalysis and processing.

With reference to FIG. 24, the exceptions module 22 provides formodification of the existing case budget when new tasks are to beperformed. For example, an unplanned event during the course oflitigation may arise as a result of the court sua sponta issuing anorder. In such an instance, an exception request 350 would be generatedand outside counsel would log on to the system 352, click on theappropriate matter for the exception 354, click the appropriate ABAcoded budget item 356 and select a new task 358. It will be appreciatedthat the value of a task can be modified, for example if it adds anincrease in value to a task that is already in the system. Counsel thenselects the exception report icon 360 and fills in 362 the appropriateinformation in the fields and then selects the submit tab 364 forsending the exception request to inside counsel.

FIG. 25 illustrates the steps for processing the exception request fromcorporate counsel's viewpoint. Here corporate counsel opens the system10 and selects the action items exception request button 366. Therequest is reviewed 368 and corporate counsel must now consider 370 asto whether to reject 372 or to modify 374 the request. However, ifcounsel approves the request then the approve button 376 is selectedsending a communication back to outside counsel of her decision. Outsidecounsel then opens the home page 378 and selects the exception statustab 380 and reviews 382 the status of the request. Outside counsel thentakes the appropriate action based upon the response 384 and completesthe task, if authorized. The exception request process is now completed386 and can now be billed utilizing the billing module 20 as discussedabove. It will be appreciated that corporate counsel may create anautomatic cost approval range and as long as outside counsel's requestfalls within that range, then the request can be automatically approved.

FIGS. 26 and 27 illustrate screen outputs of what outside and insidecounsel review when going through the exception request process asoutlined in FIGS. 24 and 25. Specifically, FIG. 26 is a screen output390, from the perspective of outside counsel, which allows outsidecounsel to describe the exception in detail 392 and provide a new budgetrequest 394. In this instance, the new budget request asks for twomeetings with an expert witness, an expense of $5,000 for the expertwitness, and an independent medical exam expense of $500. Once outsidecounsel has completed inputting the data in screen 390, the send button364 is hit which in turn sends a request to corporate counsel.

FIG. 27 depicts the screen 400 inside counsel sees after an exceptionrequest is submitted. This is also shown as review exception request 368in the FIG. 25 diagram. Inside counsel can now read outside counsel'snarrative 392 of what has caused the exception and the recommendedcourse of action. The cost of the new task is set out under therequested budget section 402 and it is compared to the previously agreedto budget 404. At this time, corporate counsel can deny the request 372,approve the request 376 or modify the request 374. The screen 400 alsoallows corporate counsel to review the entire budget 406 or close thewindow or move to the next item.

The statistical reporting module 24 is a tool used by corporate counselin order to compare requests, current budget, and numerous otherinformation that is stored in the date center 254. FIG. 28 illustratesone type of physical data output by a screen 420 showing a comparisonreport in heart valve cases throughout the various regions of the UnitedStates. The year to date budget amount is shown compared to actualexpenditures. This allows corporate counsel to assess, at any giventime, the costs in a particular type of case that is a heart valve case,throughout the United States.

It will be appreciated that numerous other reports can be generated.This is accomplished by clicking on a statistics tool bar and clickingon either standard reports or custom reports. Some of these standardreports include exception requests by region, exception requests thatwere granted by region, cost of exception requests by region andanalysis of certain types of cases by specific law firms in certainregions of the country. Specific law firm data can be prepared to seewhich attorneys in a law firm are billing the most. A report can even begenerated to find out specific fees and costs for a particular task orcase. This and numerous other types of standard reports are available inthe system 10 for corporate counsel to review.

The incentives module 26 allows corporate counsel to reward law firmsthat provide exceptional services, for example, a law firm that createsa new strategy for handling a case that will save the company money.Further, counsel can be awarded a bonus when a winning motion is createdthat successfully terminates the case early. Because the system 10controls the budget and it can be determined at any time where one isrelative to the budget, a bonus can be easily determined. Thus,corporate counsel can reward a law firm for a new innovative approach.It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that othervariations to the preferred embodiments to the present invention, beyondthose mentioned above, are possible. Accordingly, it is to be understoodthat the protection sought and to be afforded hereby should be deemed toextend to the subject matter defined by the Claims below, including allvaried equivalents thereof.

1. A computer based method that allows a client to control and managethe cost of a lawsuit independent of hourly rates comprising the stepsof: a) Selecting pre-established process maps each consisting ofindividual tasks to be done in the lawsuit; b) setting pricing and valuevariables for each individual task to be done which eliminates hourlyrates in said method; c) the client establishing a lawsuit budget byindividual task which an outside counsel must follow; d) providing acase status module with real time information on how the lawsuit isproceeding based upon individual task performed; e) providing a pointand click billing module for automatically submitting invoices to theclient, the invoices having amounts that equal the value variables forindividual tasks that have been pre-established and performed; and f)providing an exceptions module to allow for automatic approval or denialof new work submitted by outside counsel to be done that is beyond thebudget.
 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the stepof providing statistical reporting to the client, whereby data is storedand statistical information is generated using the data on all outsidecounsel for exact task cost comparison.
 3. The method as claimed inclaim 2, wherein the step of providing statistical reporting includesgraphically outputting historical information based on data that isgenerated by said method.
 4. The method claimed in claim 1, wherein thestep of selecting process maps includes selecting each anticipated taskof the lawsuit and using the process maps that are in the system.
 5. Themethod as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of creating process mapsincludes identifying each individual task to be performed in the lawsuitand inputting the level of expertise of the person who will be doingeach task.
 6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step ofsetting price and value variables includes the client establishinglimits for each task to be performed.
 7. The method as claimed in claim1, wherein the step of setting price and value variable includes theclient inputting upper and lower control limits for each task.
 8. Themethod as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of setting price andvalue variables includes inputting into a data base firm name, location,type of case, and type of lawyer.
 9. The method as claimed in claim 1,wherein the step of establishing a budget includes the client generatingvalues for each individual task, the client electronically submittingthe budget to outside counsel, and the outside counsel either acceptingor rejecting the budget by a submission back to the client.
 10. Themethod as claimed in claim 9, wherein the step of rejecting the budgetincludes allowing outside counsel to generate a counterproposal budgetby adjusting the individual tasks and electronically submit same to theclient.
 11. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step ofproviding a case status module includes providing a client with currentinformation on status of a particular lawsuit by transmission of suchinformation over the internet.
 12. The method as claimed in claim 1,wherein the step of providing a point and click billing module includesinputting the work that has been completed into a computer by clickingan ABA code representative of the work area completed, clicking on thespecific pre-approved task that has been performed, clicking on a tab tobill it, and automatically sending a bill via internet to a client. 13.The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of providing a pointand click billing module includes electronically sending a pre-approvednon-hourly based bill to a customer once the task has been completed,and the client electronically or manually causing payment to outsidecounsel.
 14. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step ofproviding a point and click billing module includes requiring a firm toelectronically bill a customer once a pre-approved task is performed.15. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of providing anexceptions module includes allowing outside counsel to electronicallysubmit requests for approval of new work that is not in the actualbudget, and allowing a client to approve, modify or reject the request.16. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of providing anexceptions module includes outside counsel submitting a request for newwork, and approving the request if it is within a previously set defaultpricing variable.
 17. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stepof providing an exceptions module includes allowing a client to obtaincurrent status of prior exceptions requests.
 18. The method as claimedin claim 1, further comprising the step of providing incentives forexceptional performance by outside counsel, electronically notifyingoutside counsel of the exceptional performance, and compensating outsidecounsel.
 19. A client controlled litigation cost management systemcomprising: a module that maps out in detail the tasks, decision pointsand litigation variables for the process of litigation; a module forassigning dollar values to each task of the process; a module forinputting pre-approved dollar values for each task to be charged bycounsel; and a module for imputing other information.
 20. A cost controland management system for assisting in-house counsel in reducinglitigation cost comprising: a real time analysis module that is operableto inform in-house counsel in reducing litigation cost; a real timebudget and cost to complete module that is created by in-house counsel;and an exception module that is operable to permit outside counsel torequest to modify the budget when a task outside of the budget arises,said in-house counsel being operable to deny said request, if therequest is approved, the budget is revised.
 21. A point and clicklitigation cost management system that is created and then controlled bya customer comprising: an input module for entering work that has beencompleted by a firm and generating an invoice; a transfer device forcommunicating the invoice to the customer; a processing departmentoperated by the customer that is operable to receive the invoice fromthe transfer device; and a means for transmitting payment information toa firm.
 22. The cost management system as claimed in claim 21, furthercomprising a means for providing exceptions requests to the budgetthrough electronic submission by the firm to the customer.
 23. The costmanagement system as claimed in claim 22, further comprising a modulefor tracking each exception that is requested, so as to make decisionsbased on a litigation process that is consistent for all outside lawfirms.
 24. A system of a law firm and corporate counsel managing thecost of litigation for a case comprising: the corporate counselgenerating an actual working budget based on defaults and pricevariables; the actual budget being electronically submitted to a lawfirm; the budget being approved, rejected or modified by the law firm;the case proceeding based upon an agreed upon budget; and the law firmelectronically requesting exceptions when a task is outside of theagreed upon actual budget, said corporate counsel either accepting orrejecting the exceptions.